Recommendations & Conclusions
13 items
12
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We do not think it necessary to establish the building safety charge separate from the service charge. Aside from the unnecessary additional bureaucracy and administration costs, a separate charge means additional, separate, bills for leaseholders at intervals and within periods which may differ from those in their leases. The same …
Read more
We do not think it necessary to establish the building safety charge separate from the service charge. Aside from the unnecessary additional bureaucracy and administration costs, a separate charge means additional, separate, bills for leaseholders at intervals and within periods which may differ from those in their leases. The same benefits of transparency (the Government’s justification for a separate charge) can be achieved by implementing our previous recommendation on standardised forms for service charge invoices.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the view that a separate building safety charge is unnecessary, providing detailed reasons why it is appropriate, including ensuring transparency, statutory rights, and greater certainty for leaseholders compared to existing service charge provisions.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
13
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
The Government should provide for recovery of ongoing building safety costs through existing service charge provisions while improving the transparency of such charges, preferably by implementing the Committee’s previous recommendations for standardised forms for service charge invoices. The building safety charge should be reserved only for any leases without a …
Read more
The Government should provide for recovery of ongoing building safety costs through existing service charge provisions while improving the transparency of such charges, preferably by implementing the Committee’s previous recommendations for standardised forms for service charge invoices. The building safety charge should be reserved only for any leases without a service charge and should be treated as a service charge for the purposes of leaseholder protection. (Paragraph 54) The Building Safety Regulator
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects the recommendation to recover ongoing building safety costs through existing service charge provisions, stating that such provisions vary and cannot guarantee clarity or recovery. Instead, it maintains that a separate Building Safety Charge will provide greater transparency and certainty.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
16
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We recommend that the Government specify in the Bill itself by way of a requirement to “have regard” the factors that must be considered in the future when the scope of the regime is expanded and that the ability of residents to evacuate the building be the principal factor. We …
Read more
We recommend that the Government specify in the Bill itself by way of a requirement to “have regard” the factors that must be considered in the future when the scope of the regime is expanded and that the ability of residents to evacuate the building be the principal factor. We also recommend that any requirement to have regard to the ability of residents to evacuate a building explicitly include both the vulnerability of residents and the number of means of egress. Finally, we recommend that the Government indicate its intention to review the scope and set a timetable for doing so.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government rejects specifying factors for future scope expansion as a 'have regard' requirement in the Bill and declines to set a timetable for review, stating the Regulator will monitor continuously. However, it has widened the regime's scope to include care homes and hospitals.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
35
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We are concerned that the Bill only removes dutyholder choice in respect of higher- risk buildings. As a result, the majority of building control work will remain exposed to the weaknesses and conflicts of interest identified by Dame Judith Hackitt. We see no good reason not to replace dutyholder choice …
Read more
We are concerned that the Bill only removes dutyholder choice in respect of higher- risk buildings. As a result, the majority of building control work will remain exposed to the weaknesses and conflicts of interest identified by Dame Judith Hackitt. We see no good reason not to replace dutyholder choice with a system of independent appointment for all out-of-scope work.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly rejects the committee's implied recommendation to remove dutyholder choice and replace it with independent appointment for all out-of-scope work.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
36
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We recommend that dutyholder choice be removed entirely from the building control system and replaced by a system of independent appointment, and that this be made explicit either in the Bill or in secondary legislation to be published alongside it.
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly rejects the recommendation to remove dutyholder choice entirely from the building control system and replace it with independent appointment.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
37
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We understand the concern from the private building control profession about the conflict of interest arising from the regulator’s dual role as building control body for higher-risk buildings and regulator of the building control profession. While we recognise that starting afresh with this Bill would be time-consuming, this is an …
Read more
We understand the concern from the private building control profession about the conflict of interest arising from the regulator’s dual role as building control body for higher-risk buildings and regulator of the building control profession. While we recognise that starting afresh with this Bill would be time-consuming, this is an issue which needs to be addressed if there is to be public confidence in the new system.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the perception of conflict regarding the regulator’s dual role but considers the benefits of a single regulator outweigh this concern, thus not addressing the implicit need for change.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
38
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
The Government should provide clear justification for combining in one body both regulation of the industry and decision-making in relation to higher-risk buildings. If this is desirable, there must be a clear statutory requirement that those involved in decision-making about individual cases of professional competence are wholly operationally independent of …
Read more
The Government should provide clear justification for combining in one body both regulation of the industry and decision-making in relation to higher-risk buildings. If this is desirable, there must be a clear statutory requirement that those involved in decision-making about individual cases of professional competence are wholly operationally independent of those involved in regulation of higher-risk buildings.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government acknowledges the perception of conflict in combining regulatory and decision-making roles but maintains that the benefits of a single regulator outweigh this, thus rejecting the call for further justification or a statutory requirement for operational independence.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
39
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We understand the argument that local authority building control teams should be audited in the same way as registered building control approvers, and we are only partially convinced by the provisions allowing for the duties of a failing local Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill 63 authority to be …
Read more
We understand the argument that local authority building control teams should be audited in the same way as registered building control approvers, and we are only partially convinced by the provisions allowing for the duties of a failing local Pre-legislative scrutiny of the Building Safety Bill 63 authority to be transferred to another local authority. We think the Bill should make explicit provision for the regulator to monitor and assure the competency of local authority building control, perhaps by mandating UKAS accreditation for all LABC teams.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees that ensuring competence and monitoring of local authority building control teams is important, but rejects the recommendation to include explicit provision in the Bill for the regulator to monitor and assure their competency comparably to registered building control approvers.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
40
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We recommend that the Bill place an explicit duty on the regulator to monitor and assure the competence of local authority building control teams through provisions comparable to those for the registration of building control approvers, perhaps by mandating UKAS accreditation for all LABC teams. (Paragraph 132) Occupation
Read more
We recommend that the Bill place an explicit duty on the regulator to monitor and assure the competence of local authority building control teams through provisions comparable to those for the registration of building control approvers, perhaps by mandating UKAS accreditation for all LABC teams. (Paragraph 132) Occupation
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government agrees on the importance of ensuring the competence of local authority building control teams but rejects the recommendation to place an explicit duty on the regulator in the Bill to monitor and assure this competence comparably to building control approvers.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
61
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We would encourage the Government to consider making it clear on the face of the Bill whether the power in clause 87 includes authorising the use of force but express no view on the conclusion to be reached.
Government response AI summary
The government considered the suggestion but explicitly decided not to clarify on the face of the Bill whether the power in clause 87 includes authorising the use of force.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
70
Conclusion
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
The construction products regulatory regime envisaged in the Bill and accompanying documents fails to recognise that a single product may have more than one application and that it might be considered safety critical in one application but not in another. Further, this weakness in the regime could be exacerbated by …
Read more
The construction products regulatory regime envisaged in the Bill and accompanying documents fails to recognise that a single product may have more than one application and that it might be considered safety critical in one application but not in another. Further, this weakness in the regime could be exacerbated by the apparent intention to designate product families, rather than individual products, as safety critical.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the committee's conclusion, stating that the regulatory system for products already recognizes that a single construction product may have multiple applications.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
71
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We recommend that the Government set out, either in the Bill or in secondary legislation to be published alongside it, how the regime will certify individual products, as opposed to product families, and take account of products with more than one application.
Read more
We recommend that the Government set out, either in the Bill or in secondary legislation to be published alongside it, how the regime will certify individual products, as opposed to product families, and take account of products with more than one application.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the premise, stating that the current regulatory system for products already recognizes multiple applications for a single product and implicitly rejects the need for new provisions.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government
74
Recommendation
Fifth report: Pre-legislative scrutiny …
Rejected
We cannot judge the adequacy of European harmonised standards, but we agree with the industry that the Government should indicate soon whether it has any plans to review hENs and commission new standards. The Government should indicate whether or how quickly it intends to review existing European harmonised standards.
Read more
We cannot judge the adequacy of European harmonised standards, but we agree with the industry that the Government should indicate soon whether it has any plans to review hENs and commission new standards. The Government should indicate whether or how quickly it intends to review existing European harmonised standards.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government explicitly states it has no current plans to review existing European harmonised standards. Its immediate priority is a smooth transition to a new UK regulatory system, and it mentions a future Construction Products Standards Committee will advise on UK regulatory standards.
Read full response →
Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government